Concerning relavency of conclusions, I beg to differ (surpised, huh?).

The degree to which they are irrelevant to me are of varying importance to me.

In contrast, if others think they are important and I think their reasoning and/or evidence and/or conclusions are flawed and if their opinions influence others, then it is completely appropriate and useful and valuable that I work to clarify the process that leads to erroneous conclusions.

All positions boil to something simple, not just mine. Look to your own for an example.

Why do you choose to use the term "faux intellectual"? That seems a childish line for you. If I have taken that tone with you, and you are reacting to it, I apologize. Lets keep it focused on teh argument rather than each other, okay?

B

Of course he manipulated the facts to suit his purposes, or more precisely, his various handlers did. Wolfowicz himself has stated, publically, that WMD was a rationale that was SELECTED because it was believed to be the one that the public, and the Congress, would be most inclined to buy.

I am not saying that the neo-cons around Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq. They, like most of us, thought there probably were some. The point is that they must have known that the weapons inspectors over the years had gotten rid of most of them. I also do not believe that the administration actually thought whatever WMD they might find were a threat to the United States; rather, they had made a decision to take on Iraq, weapons or no. Far too many insiders (Clarke and O'Neil the most prominent) have referred to talk about attacking Iraq beginning just after the inauguration. This explains their surprising lack of concern over the intelligence "failings" that led to the WMD rationale. They weren't peeved with the intelligence community because they had not been misled--on the contrary, the administration had LED the intelligence officials to look for the rationale that was to their liking.

Joe B.

Botnst,

Sorry to seem to making the discussion a personal attack as that was not intended. I used the word "faux intellectual" to describe my interpretation of your argument because you make the logic exercise you go to the trouble to lay out appear to be of no value to you personally when you not that it is for an argument that you find the logic of to be personally irrelevant. Kind of a complex sentence but I just reread it a few times and I could follow it (knowing the point I was trying to make ahead of time, of course). If that is not how you intended your view of the situation to be percieved, I would change my adjective once I understood how this all hangs together. Jim

__________________
Own:
1986 Euro 190E 2.3-16 (291,000 miles),
1998 E300D TurboDiesel, 231,000 miles -purchased with 45,000,
1988 300E 5-speed 252,000 miles,
1983 240D 4-speed, purchased w/136,000, now with 222,000 miles.
2009 ML320CDI Bluetec, 89,000 miles

Owned:
1971 220D (250,000 miles plus, sold to father-in-law),
1975 240D (245,000 miles - died of body rot),
1991 350SD (176,560 miles, weakest Benz I have owned),
1999 C230 Sport (45,400 miles),
1982 240D (321,000 miles, put to sleep)

Posted by JimSmith: Sorry to seem to making the discussion a personal attack as that was not intended.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Having read the relevant posts, Jim, I think you have nothing to apologize for. You have not made an ad hominem argument at all. On the contrary, a veiled ad hominen has been leveled at you--the question of your "tone" in using the term faux intellectual.

If you see an argument presented as cloaked in intellectual clap trap to disguise someone's ideological predisposition, I think you are right to say so. If they have no rebuttal for it, so be it.

Joe B.

...sort of tantamount to waving off the fact that your kids held up the five n' dime down the street in order to procure funds for the purchase that 'one of a kind' Father's Day gift. You love the gift and the sentiment behind their motivation, therefore you're willing to disregard that minor little armed robbery part of the story.

No matter how this guy tries he cannot resist insulting someone's intelligence.

Again my money is on the scientist.

Jim, I just wanted to be clear on that and I understand. No big deal.

Well now Joe, I guess since you're not the aggrieved party and nobody has requested your apparent talents for unbiased mediation, that just about renders almost anything you have to say about my perception of somebody else's comment directed at me, irrelevant.

Bot

That almost works. I fail to agree on the first part, though.

Lets see if I can cobble together a parable that would work from my perspective.

Its like receiving a 'one of a kind' Father's Day gift from somebody who is not your child.

Bot

I agree -- that's pretty much what I concluded as well.....

...is the armed robbery part easier to dismiss in this version?

I disagree that the origin was necessarily dishonest, though it may have been illegitimate, but I do agree that it was a valuable gift.

How's that?

B

...the mafia used to be especially talented at delivering valuable 'gifts' too.

Well, in the absence of compelling evidence, I'll just stick with what I got.

You know, several times I have asked the question what folks think about the other candidates' positions. (but of course, I think its horribly important that we once agin run through the lie/not lie Bush-love/Bush-hate, vast left/right conspiracy crap over and over).

I have opined on several occasions that I am relieved that M. Jean Kerry, the most French-looking candidate, is headed Bush's way on Iraq and the wider war on terrorist. For some reason that I cannot fathom, you (Z) are the only one on the left who has commented on this rightward lurch of Lurch. Why do other people on the left not find that (at least!) ironic?

Bot

...I suppose it's because I'm independent and steadfastly nonpartisan. I try to remain clear-eyed about anyone who calls themselves a politician or an advocate for a party machine. I find the whole "anyone but Bush" mentality to be profoundly anti-intellectual and personally repellent, but I do understand its motivation.

For the record, I'm not the only lefty to take note of Kerry's rightward tilt, but the mainstream press doesn't seem to be capable of focusing on our concerns...wait, who am I fooling? They've never seen fit to focus on our concerns

To me, the only intellectually honest players on the left are Kucinich and Nader.

Howard Dean was pretty close to consistently holding a defensible position (in my estimation, the wrong one...) until the press started pulling-out the long knives. That was ill treatment of a serious candidate by the press. I don't think its a conspiracy per se. But the news loves a phenomenon that grips the nation and then loves to dissect the phenomenon when the nation is in its grip. And a goo dpart of the nation was energized by Dean.

Then Kerry "nuanced" his own position to look like Deans in the primary and the press gave him a pass on that one.

Now Kerry is moving right and licking Bush.